ATP World ‘Number 1’ Status and its Relative Worth.

[Wuornos]

From August 23rd 1973, when the ATP rankings were first introduced, until the same date in 1995, a period of 22 years, we saw 12 different players hold the prestigious Number 1 position.

Looking at each of these in turn in the order they first reached the top of the rankings we can see the following great players.

1. Ilie Năstase. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 40 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2670.

2. John Newcombe. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 8 weeks during his career, won 5 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2693.

3. Jimmy Connors. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 268 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2723.

4. Björn Borg. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 109 weeks during his career, won 11 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2768.

5. John McEnroe. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 170 weeks during his career, won 7 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2756.

6. Ivan Lendl. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 270 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2789.

7. Mats Wilander. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 20 weeks during his career, won 7 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2759.

8. Stefan Edberg. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 72 weeks during his career, won 6 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2751.

9. Boris Becker. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 12 weeks during his career, won 6 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2745.

10. Jim Courier. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 58 weeks during his career, won 4 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2739.

11. Pete Sampras. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 286 weeks during his career, won 14 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2769.

12. Andre Agassi. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 101 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2707.

With me so far. That’s 12 players in 22 years. Their careers have mean reign of 117.8 weeks at Number 1, they have won an average of 7.2 majors between them and have a mean peak Elo rating of 2739.

Now lets look at the next 12 years. That’s only just over half the first period we looked at.

The first thing that’s strikes me is that despite the period being much sorter we have almost as many new players having made it to the top of the Rankings within that much shorter time period as we had in the first list. i.e. 11 players as opposed to 12. Here they are again in the order they made it to the top first.

13. Thomas Muster. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2619.

14. Marcelo Ríos. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, never won a major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2601.

15. Carlos Moyà. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 2 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2633.

16. Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2653.

17. Patrick Rafter. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 1 week during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2671.

18. Marat Safin. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 9 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2653.

19. Gustavo Kuerten. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 43 weeks during his career, won 3 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2621.

20. Lleyton Hewitt. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 80 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2678.

21. Juan Carlos Ferrero. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 8 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2652.

22. Andy Roddick. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 13 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2676.

23. Roger Federer. Has held the Number 1 position for a total of 196 weeks during his career, has won 12 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2796.


The lowest ELO peak rating of the first 12 players achieving the number 1 status was 2670 by Ilie Năstase. Out of the next 11 players, 7 were lower than the previous lowest. Only Patrick Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and Roger Federer meeting the minimum standard necessary of the first list.

While the average career reign at Number 1 for the first 12 players was 117.8 weeks this figure falls to 33.6 weeks for the second list and would be as low as 17.4 if it were not for Federer. The mean number of Majors won falls from 7.2 in the first list to 2.5 in the second list and again would be as low as 1.5 barring Federer.

Now I have talked this point over with others and the one argument I have heard most frequently is that these players were playing in the eras of Sampras, Agassi and Federer so it’s normal that they shouldn’t have achieved as much as the first list. I’m not convinced by this, the first list has some pretty good players to. But this essentially misses the point, the question is why did they ever get to be Number 1 in the first place?

To me this is indicative of one thing, i.e. to achieve the number 1 status is now easier than it was previously, possibly because the ratings are issued more frequently and possibly because any changes in the points system has impacted on the volatility of the series.

I was asked once before, why my ELO ratings move so slowly. I think the question should be why do ATP ratings move so quickly and apparently only in the more recent years.

I’m all for the volume based ATP ratings and the pressure it puts on a player to play more frequently, but it does appear as if something may be going a little astray with the system and it perhaps needs to be looked at.

What do people think.

Regards

Tim

 

[Rhino]

To me this is indicative of one thing, i.e. to achieve the number 1 status is now easier than it was previously

Thanks for your interesting post, Tim.

I do not know much about ELO ratings so am not sure of how this affects things, but I would say that for the last few years it has been harder for a player reach #1 than ever before. Nadal has won three majors and been at #2 forever. Surely at any other time a man with that many ranking points would have been a #1 player at least for a while, but as we know, Federer is now just short of his 200th consecutive week at #1, something that nobody has ever achieved before. He has so many points that he has more than double the world #4. Sampras routinely held the #1 spot with less than 5000pts - a lot less than Nadal.

There was a period pre-Federer when it was a bit easier. People like Ferrero and Roddick were able to sneak in a #1 ranking, but they achieved a lot less than Nadal. It's just timing.

One thing is for sure there were just as many weeks and Grand Slam events during the first 12 year period as there were in the 2nd 12 year period, so there was just as much chance for anybody at any time if they could just win enough events.

 

[christos_liaskos]

Going to make myself look dumb here but what is this ELO rating? Ive never seen it mentioned anywhere else before

 

[Rhino]

Going to make myself look dumb here but what is this ELO rating? Ive never seen it mentioned anywhere else before

dude you don't look dumb, it's the 2nd time I've seen this on these forums but I've also never seen it anywhere else before either. All I know is that it takes players a lot longer to fall out of the top 10. I think Roddicj is still ranked above djokovic and ferrero is still in the ELO top 10!!

 

[PimpMyGame]

During the gap between Sampras's "decline" and Federer's "ascendancy" there were a lot of players jostling for the number one spot. It was very competitive because no-one was consistent enough to take the bull by the horns and be an out-and-out number one, with the possible exception of Hewitt.

What this boiled down to was a gaggle of players cutting each other's throats. The same thing happened between Lendl and Sampras, but to a smaller scale with Wilander, Edberg and Becker taking a share of the spoils with what would look like hardly a dent on the "weeks at number 1" clapometer. Were they not of consequence, or were they around at a very competitive time?

Tim, I have to disagree with your conclusion based on the probability that we will see the exact same thing happen when Federer starts his decline, until the next heir is established. We could wait three years for the next big thing, and see 10 different number ones or we could see someone go straight to the number one spot and stay there for maybe six years.

 

[christos_liaskos]

dude you don't look dumb, it's the 2nd time I've seen this on these forums but I've also never seen it anywhere else before either. All I know is that it takes players a lot longer to fall out of the top 10. I think Roddicj is still ranked above djokovic and ferrero is still in the ELO top 10!!

sounds strange. You dont know what it stands for then or what it actually measures? If not Rhino, can anyone else help me?

 

[Rhino]

sounds strange. You dont know what it stands for then or what it actually measures? If not Rhino, can anyone else help me?

This is what I found from another poster on a previous thread:

"This system is more favourable for less active players. Your rating doesn't drop through inactivity, only results. You have an expected score of 50% against players of the same rating, 45% against a player 50 points higher (or something like that...), change in rating = K * (expected - actual), where K is a multiplication factor, which is higher for juniors and new players to allow them to find their true level quicker, and is lower for established players.

The big advantage of ELO vs rankings is you get ranked according to who you play, not which round of which tourney you get to. If you win three rounds of Wimby against nonentities, you gain fewer points than beating seeds in rounds one and two and losing to a seed in round three. To my mind, this is a huige advantage."
__________________

 

[christos_liaskos]

This is what I found from another poster on a previous thread:

"This system is more favourable for less active players. Your rating doesn't drop through inactivity, only results. You have an expected score of 50% against players of the same rating, 45% against a player 50 points higher (or something like that...), change in rating = K * (expected - actual), where K is a multiplication factor, which is higher for juniors and new players to allow them to find their true level quicker, and is lower for established players.

The big advantage of ELO vs rankings is you get ranked according to who you play, not which round of which tourney you get to. If you win three rounds of Wimby against nonentities, you gain fewer points than beating seeds in rounds one and two and losing to a seed in round three. To my mind, this is a huige advantage."
__________________

Ok, interesting. Thanks for that Rhino. Just searched for it in google too and although it didnt come up with much I noticed it mentioned the WTA. In their rankings system, a win over a higher ranked player is awarded with more rankings points I think but its not with the ATP rankings. Tim, where did you find these Elo ratings for the ATP players?

 

[caulcano]

From August 23rd 1973, when the ATP rankings were first introduced, until the same date in 1995, a period of 22 years, we saw 12 different players hold the prestigious Number 1 position.

Looking at each of these in turn in the order they first reached the top of the rankings we can see the following great players.

1. Ilie Năstase. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 40 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2670.

2. John Newcombe. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 8 weeks during his career, won 5 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2693.

3. Jimmy Connors. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 268 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2723.

4. Björn Borg. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 109 weeks during his career, won 11 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2768.

5. John McEnroe. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 170 weeks during his career, won 7 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2756.

6. Ivan Lendl. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 270 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2789.

7. Mats Wilander. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 20 weeks during his career, won 7 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2759.

8. Stefan Edberg. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 72 weeks during his career, won 6 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2751.

9. Boris Becker. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 12 weeks during his career, won 6 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2745.

10. Jim Courier. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 58 weeks during his career, won 4 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2739.

11. Pete Sampras. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 286 weeks during his career, won 14 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2769.

12. Andre Agassi. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 101 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2707.

With me so far. That’s 12 players in 22 years. Their careers have mean reign of 117.8 weeks at Number 1, they have won an average of 7.2 majors between them and have a mean peak Elo rating of 2739.

Now lets look at the next 12 years. That’s only just over half the first period we looked at.

The first thing that’s strikes me is that despite the period being much sorter we have almost as many new players having made it to the top of the Rankings within that much shorter time period as we had in the first list. i.e. 11 players as opposed to 12. Here they are again in the order they made it to the top first.

13. Thomas Muster. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2619.

14. Marcelo Ríos. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, never won a major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2601.

15. Carlos Moyà. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 2 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2633.

16. Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2653.

17. Patrick Rafter. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 1 week during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2671.

18. Marat Safin. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 9 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2653.

19. Gustavo Kuerten. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 43 weeks during his career, won 3 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2621.

20. Lleyton Hewitt. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 80 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2678.

21. Juan Carlos Ferrero. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 8 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2652.

22. Andy Roddick. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 13 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2676.

23. Roger Federer. Has held the Number 1 position for a total of 196 weeks during his career, has won 12 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2796.


The lowest ELO peak rating of the first 12 players achieving the number 1 status was 2670 by Ilie Năstase. Out of the next 11 players, 7 were lower than the previous lowest. Only Patrick Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and Roger Federer meeting the minimum standard necessary of the first list.

While the average career reign at Number 1 for the first 12 players was 117.8 weeks this figure falls to 33.6 weeks for the second list and would be as low as 17.4 if it were not for Federer. The mean number of Majors won falls from 7.2 in the first list to 2.5 in the second list and again would be as low as 1.5 barring Federer.

Now I have talked this point over with others and the one argument I have heard most frequently is that these players were playing in the eras of Sampras, Agassi and Federer so it’s normal that they shouldn’t have achieved as much as the first list. I’m not convinced by this, the first list has some pretty good players to. But this essentially misses the point, the question is why did they ever get to be Number 1 in the first place?

To me this is indicative of one thing, i.e. to achieve the number 1 status is now easier than it was previously, possibly because the ratings are issued more frequently and possibly because any changes in the points system has impacted on the volatility of the series.

I was asked once before, why my ELO ratings move so slowly. I think the question should be why do ATP ratings move so quickly and apparently only in the more recent years.

I’m all for the volume based ATP ratings and the pressure it puts on a player to play more frequently, but it does appear as if something may be going a little astray with the system and it perhaps needs to be looked at.

What do people think.

Regards

Tim

Didn't the way how rankings were determined change from how it was in the 70s & 80s?

 

[Wuornos]

Ok, interesting. Thanks for that Rhino. Just searched for it in google too and although it didnt come up with much I noticed it mentioned the WTA. In their rankings system, a win over a higher ranked player is awarded with more rankings points I think but its not with the ATP rankings. Tim, where did you find these Elo ratings for the ATP players?

Hi rather than a lengthy post the following link should explain it. Elo is a different take on the rankings. It's based more on quality of results rather than quantity. I just post it because it's an interest of mine and provides a slightly different perspective to the official rankings.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=162812

Take care Christos and thanks for the interest.

Regards

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

Didn't the way how rankings were determined change from how it was in the 70s & 80s?

Yes that's what I was wondering about and whether the changes result in people climbing an falling faster. E.g was the best 18 event threshold lower before. That would have this type of effect.

 

[Eviscerator]

Interesting post

 

[FedForGOAT]

there is one flaw in this system. your rating (which should display your talent) is dependent on your opponents' rating, while theirs is dependent on yours and so on. so if you play opponents w/bad ranking your ranking will be relatively bad, and it will be harder to rise in the rating by beating them while they will have a hard time rising by beating you. Also Agassi was still a force around 2001-2005, so why is he only in the first group?

 

[barbadosan]

I'm not sure how this ELO system could be fairer:

1) You don't control the vagaries of a draw, so you may end up in a quarter with everybody ranked below you, yet you still have to actually beat them to progress;

2) Kinda hard for the no. 1 or no. 2 player to play anyone ABOVE them - so you've already predetermined to some extent that they must cease to be that rank

 

[cho1220]

Also Agassi was still a force around 2001-2005, so why is he only in the first group?

i have no idea myself but

he probably wasn't number 1? i really don't have any idea...thats my guess.

 

[Leublu tennis]

This is the first time I have heard of the ELO. Who maintains these records and is it used for anything? I gather not, since it is not mentioned in the same breath as the daily concern as to who will end up among the top 8 (9 really, right?).

 

[Leublu tennis]

dude you don't look dumb, it's the 2nd time I've seen this on these forums but I've also never seen it anywhere else before either. All I know is that it takes players a lot longer to fall out of the top 10. I think Roddicj is still ranked above djokovic and ferrero is still in the ELO top 10!!

Actually, according to Dr. Plo's system for rating the top 100 tennis players in history, Tod Martin is rated to be equal to Novak Djokovic and Marcos Baghdatis (#54) is above Roy Emerson (#70) and Pancho Gonzales (#84)!! Some system! Baghdatis couldn't carry Emerson's shoes. And Pancho Gonzales? Isn't he being bantied about as a possible GOAT? Give me a break.

 

[Wuornos]

Actually, according to Dr. Plo's system for rating the top 100 tennis players in history, Tod Martin is rated to be equal to Novak Djokovic and Marcos Baghdatis (#54) is above Roy Emerson (#70) and Pancho Gonzales (#84)!! Some system! Baghdatis couldn't carry Emerson's shoes. And Pancho Gonzales? Isn't he being bantied about as a possible GOAT? Give me a break.

Sorry you feel like this. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I doubt on their performances in the open era Pancho Gonzales or Roy Emerson can expect to have established their cases as being outstanding players. Remember the list is only stating that based upon the evidence providied and without artificial human assigned weightings Marcos Baghdatis has provided better evidence of being a higher rated player tha either of these other two great players provided in the open era.

If I could find some way of extending the elo ratings back pre open era then they would undoubtedly hold much higher positions in the peak rating list.

As for Todd Martin being equal to Novak Đoković you've interpreted the list correctly. Based on Novak Đoković domination and the quality of opposition faced the Elo system would see him and Tdd Martin as playing roughly equal standards at their peak. Of course Novak Đoković may we climb further but we cannot attribute that performance until such time as he has achieved it and the evidence has been established.

Thanks for your interest

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

there is one flaw in this system. your rating (which should display your talent) is dependent on your opponents' rating, while theirs is dependent on yours and so on. so if you play opponents w/bad ranking your ranking will be relatively bad, and it will be harder to rise in the rating by beating them while they will have a hard time rising by beating you. Also Agassi was still a force around 2001-2005, so why is he only in the first group?

Thanks for this.

Yes some interesting points.

Your point about the system being self referencing is valid if the population size is two but each player will play matches against many different players and therefore the relationship is more reflective of your perfomance against the rating of the many opposition played. In cases of over and underrated oppposition which I suspect is what you are concerned with, in a large population and a large sample of matches these anomoloies balance out and therefore the rating can be considered as truly representatiive.

Your point about Agassi being in the first group is valid. I took a simple of approach of examing the first 12 players achieveing Number 1 Status with the remaining 11. If I switched Agassi into the second group, it reallly wouldn't make the difference to what is already a massive discrepency between the two populations.

ELO asside the first population without Agassi would still average 119.4 weeks at number 1 and 7.1 majors while the second group with Agassi would average 39.3 weeks at number 1 and 2.5 majors.

It would still appear that the two populations are selected using very different criteria.

Good points though and thanks.

Tim

PS On the ELO rating system Fed is goat!

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Now I have talked this point over with others and the one argument I have heard most frequently is that these players were playing in the eras of Sampras, Agassi and Federer so it’s normal that they shouldn’t have achieved as much as the first list. I’m not convinced by this, the first list has some pretty good players to. But this essentially misses the point, the question is why did they ever get to be Number 1 in the first place?

To me this is indicative of one thing, i.e. to achieve the number 1 status is now easier than it was previously, possibly because the ratings are issued more frequently and possibly because any changes in the points system has impacted on the volatility of the series.

i'm not sure it's because of some evolution in the ranking system, but that's an interesting constatation: the average "standard" of players that have reached the #1 spot has been indeed lower in the 2nd period that you mention.
or maybe the elimination of the bonus points has played a role too ?

During the gap between Sampras's "decline" and Federer's "ascendancy" there were a lot of players jostling for the number one spot. It was very competitive because no-one was consistent enough to take the bull by the horns and be an out-and-out number one, with the possible exception of Hewitt.

What this boiled down to was a gaggle of players cutting each other's throats. The same thing happened between Lendl and Sampras, but to a smaller scale with Wilander, Edberg and Becker taking a share of the spoils with what would look like hardly a dent on the "weeks at number 1" clapometer. Were they not of consequence, or were they around at a very competitive time?

Tim, I have to disagree with your conclusion based on the probability that we will see the exact same thing happen when Federer starts his decline, until the next heir is established. We could wait three years for the next big thing, and see 10 different number ones or we could see someone go straight to the number one spot and stay there for maybe six years.

i think this is one of the reasons...

maybe this plot can help ?

Nb: it involves different ranking systems... but i think some rescaling was done.
http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/systems.html

 

[Wuornos]

dude you don't look dumb, it's the 2nd time I've seen this on these forums but I've also never seen it anywhere else before either. All I know is that it takes players a lot longer to fall out of the top 10. I think Roddicj is still ranked above djokovic and ferrero is still in the ELO top 10!!

Hey Rhino. That's absolutely spot on.

It does take longer for a player to fall out of the top 10 and Roddick is still ranked above Novak Đoković. Juan Carlos Ferrero is still just in the top 10 as is David Nalbandian before his results of the other week.

The Elo system doesn't rely on human assigned weighting in its calculations but measures the quality of the results played rather than relying on volume like the ATP ratings. It uses statistical probability theory to determine the value of evidence from the results of players rather than an artificial human assigned weighting. This is not to say that the system cannot be fast moving if the evidence has been provided, e.g. Novak Đoković has risen from 2555 Elo and 29th in the world to 2654 and 4th in the world in the past 12 months.

It is used widely in Chess outside of this site as can be seen at :

http://www.fide.com/ratings/top.phtml

It is used in the soccer world at

http://www.eloratings.net/

and has been used in relation to tennis outside these forums at

http://www.setratings.com/

It loses out to the official ratings, however, as there is less encouragement for players to compete more frequently and therefore while such a system has a far sounder basis in statistical probability theory and probably is more reflective of a players quality of tennis results it does not serve the best interest of the tennis fan.

Thanks Rhino for helping out with questions in this thread.

Appreciated.

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

i'm not sure it's because of some evolution in the ranking system, but that's an interesting constatation: the average "standard" of players that have reached the #1 spot has been indeed lower in the 2nd period that you mention.
or maybe the elimination of the bonus points has played a role too ?


i think this is one of the reasons...

maybe this plot can help ?

Nb: it involves different ranking systems... but i think some rescaling was done.
http://www.tennis28.com/rankings/systems.html

Oh wow what a fantastic post. Great link to a website, great chart, excellent points well made.

Outstanding.

Can you tell me how you embed a chart o table like that in a thread post?

Thanks

Tim

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Oh wow what a fantastic post. Great link to a website, great chart, excellent points well made.

Outstanding.

Can you tell me how you embed a chart o table like that in a thread post?

Thanks

Tim

when you are writing a post, you've got a little button above the text box :

which allows you to put the URL of the image you wanna insert !
Nb: for instance, i used this button for inserting the image... of this same button !

 

[Wuornos]

when you are writing a post, you've got a little button above the text box :

which allows you to put the URL of the image you wanna insert !
Nb: for instance, i used this button for inserting the image... of this same button !

Great. Thanks, i'll definitely make use of that in future.

Appreciated.

Tim

 

[Ossric]

First of all, you're comparing guys who had 15-20 years on the tour to guys that have 10 or so and are still active.

Have this discussion when all the guys you're talking are retired, including Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer goes on to win more majors retires and then these two rack up 8-10 each you'll start to appreciate Federer more.

The truth is he has won 3/4 for the past 3 years straight and wimby 5, us 4. So yes, because of him the past 5 years it's been very difficult for anyone that isn't named Nadal to have any kind of consistant major tournament success.

5 years is half a career for a lot of guys, 25-33% for most top guys.

Also, to throw another idea out there, wouldn't it beg to reason that if the number 1 jostled around more players during the post Sampras era that would mean there was more competition? The same 3-4 guys shared #1 and most of the majors for 10-20 years. That tells me that there wasn't much other competition, not the other way around. They had to beat each other and not worry about the rest of the field.

 

[Wuornos]

First of all, you're comparing guys who had 15-20 years on the tour to guys that have 10 or so and are still active.

Have this discussion when all the guys you're talking are retired, including Nadal and Djokovic. If Federer goes on to win more majors retires and then these two rack up 8-10 each you'll start to appreciate Federer more.

The truth is he has won 3/4 for the past 3 years straight and wimby 5, us 4. So yes, because of him the past 5 years it's been very difficult for anyone that isn't named Nadal to have any kind of consistant major tournament success.

5 years is half a career for a lot of guys, 25-33% for most top guys.

Also, to throw another idea out there, wouldn't it beg to reason that if the number 1 jostled around more players during the post Sampras era that would mean there was more competition? The same 3-4 guys shared #1 and most of the majors for 10-20 years. That tells me that there wasn't much other competition, not the other way around. They had to beat each other and not worry about the rest of the field.

Thanks Ossric. Personally I doubt that many of the guys in the second group are going to achieve a lot more than they already have apart from Federer. But you may be right we will see.

Of course neither Rafael Nadal nor Novak Đoković are included in group 2 and therefore do not form part of this analysis as they have never been number 1. I take your point though that if and when they do make number 1 their records may well be far better than others who are already in Group 2 and therefore would drag the mean accomplishments of the group up. Personally I already see Rafael Nadal's achievements as superior to everyone in group 2 other than Federer. I really hope your right as I hate to see what I suspect is a statistical anmoly beginning to appear within the official rankings as it weakens the appeal of tennis.

Not sure about your idea that things are much more competitive now compared with the first 22 years of the rankings. You may be right, but normally if the differential between the top players compresses like that enabling many more players to achieve the top it is more likely to indicate a weakening of the top player rather than a sudden simultaneous strengthening of the top 4 or 5 players. You may well have a very good point though as the figures I calculate for ELO are indicative of a weaker era following Sampras, and this would have the same effect as an anomoly in the way the rankings are calculated.

You know I actually think you've got the answer there. Thanks for that Ossric.

I posted the mean of the top 10 elo ratings for the end of each year in the open era at message 33 in the fllowing thread and it certainly shows a corresponding dip down for thye period concerned so the argument you put forward appears to be consistent. I would post the graph but unfortunately I still can't work out how to do it!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1834532#post1834532

Take care and great post

Tim

 

[Wuornos]

Another attempt to post the graph of mean elo of top 10 players.

If this works it will illustrate the reduction in top elo's following the Sampras era.


Nope I still can't do it!

 

[HellBunni]

While the average career reign at Number 1 for the first 12 players was 117.8 weeks this figure falls to 33.6 weeks for the second list and would be as low as 17.4 if it were not for Federer. The mean number of Majors won falls from 7.2 in the first list to 2.5 in the second list and again would be as low as 1.5 barring Federer.

of course the averages drop. You are comparing 22 years vs 12 years, the second half is missing 10 years worth of weeks/majors. With more years the average would be more stable.

there are more #1 because the level of competition is very high. One way of looking at "why it's so easy to become #1" is "why is it so hard to hold on to the #1"

 

[pabloJD]

Another attempt to post the graph of mean elo of top 10 players.

If this works it will illustrate the reduction in top elo's following the Sampras era.


Nope I still can't do it!

Try a free image hosting service like Im*geShack or some other and then paste the link for blogs

 

[pabloJD]

of course the averages drop. You are comparing 22 years vs 12 years, the second half is missing 10 years worth of weeks/majors. With more years the average would be more stable.

there are more #1 because the level of competition is very high. One way of looking at "why it's so easy to become #1" is "why is it so hard to hold on to the #1"

I think there were more number ones because there was no dominant player, regardless the level of competition. And that parity was reflected in the rankings. If there was no dominant player then it's understandable that nobody was able to hold to the top for a long time.

 

[Ossric]

I think there were more number ones because there was no dominant player, regardless the level of competition. And that parity was reflected in the rankings. If there was no dominant player then it's understandable that nobody was able to hold to the top for a long time.

It's a catch 22.

Is there no dominant player because they are all good or is there no dominant player because they are all bad.

It all boils down to a matter of opinion.

BTW, thanks Wuornos for the kind words about my earlier post.

 

[Wuornos]

It's a catch 22.

Is there no dominant player because they are all good or is there no dominant player because they are all bad.

It all boils down to a matter of opinion.

BTW, thanks Wuornos for the kind words about my earlier post.

I think if there's no dominant player it's far more likely that they are all a bit off the pace.

How can lay this out in a way that's easy to understand?

If we think of a sport where performances are easily, measurable and pretend they're not.. Say 100 metre running.

Say one year someone kills everbody and the best times look like this.

Runner 1 Best 9.82
Runner 2 Best 9.90
Runner 3 Best 9.95
Runner 4 Best 9.98
Runner 5 Best 10.00

This is roughly the pattern you tend to see at the top of a performance based normal distribution. The gaps get slowly closer together as you move down the rankings.

Next year number 1 retires = Sampras.

They all run again but now things are much closer and races are more shared between the top runners. The question is what is the more likely explanation in the absence of times.

1. They have all moved up to 9.82 or thereabouts.

or

2. There is no change and the top performer is missing.

You see I go with 2 everytime. Not that 1 is impossible but it's far less likely.

The only time I go with 1 is when we see a number 1 dominate and we then see number 2 come into the picture but no one else is still getting a look in. That's like Federer and Nadal in the last few years. Then the more likely explanation is that the number 2 has improved while others have remained constant.

Do you see the reasonable explanation is always the one allowing for historical data which is the most likely to have occured, and that is normally the one that requires the changes to have occured to the fewer number of players?

Just my opinion but I would say that Samras retired and the others stayed the same. On Federer's subsequent domination, I would say Federer got better not all the rest weaker and the subsequent rise of Nadal as main challenger likewise.

If this isn't right then ELO is shot as it's main assumption is that the population remains the same and the rating of individual players move within the population and not the other way round.

Sorry if the wording of this sounds a bit off. Its a bit late and I'm tired but suffer from insomnia.

Thanks for the post

Regards

Tim

 

[cuddles26]

There are too many years the clearly wrong guy ended the year #1, which diminishes its worth something. These are the obvious years:

1977- Connors over Borg and Vilas
1978- Connors over Borg
1982- McEnroe over Connors
1989- Lendl over Becker
1990- Edberg over Lendl

 

[hoodjem]

From August 23rd 1973, when the ATP rankings were first introduced, until the same date in 1995, a period of 22 years, we saw 12 different players hold the prestigious Number 1 position.

Looking at each of these in turn in the order they first reached the top of the rankings we can see the following great players.

1. Ilie Năstase. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 40 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2670.

2. John Newcombe. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 8 weeks during his career, won 5 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2693.

3. Jimmy Connors. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 268 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2723.

4. Björn Borg. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 109 weeks during his career, won 11 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2768.

5. John McEnroe. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 170 weeks during his career, won 7 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2756.

6. Ivan Lendl. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 270 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2789.

7. Mats Wilander. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 20 weeks during his career, won 7 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2759.

8. Stefan Edberg. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 72 weeks during his career, won 6 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2751.

9. Boris Becker. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 12 weeks during his career, won 6 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2745.

10. Jim Courier. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 58 weeks during his career, won 4 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2739.

11. Pete Sampras. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 286 weeks during his career, won 14 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2769.

12. Andre Agassi. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 101 weeks during his career, won 8 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2707.

With me so far. That’s 12 players in 22 years. Their careers have mean reign of 117.8 weeks at Number 1, they have won an average of 7.2 majors between them and have a mean peak Elo rating of 2739.

Now lets look at the next 12 years. That’s only just over half the first period we looked at.

The first thing that’s strikes me is that despite the period being much sorter we have almost as many new players having made it to the top of the Rankings within that much shorter time period as we had in the first list. i.e. 11 players as opposed to 12. Here they are again in the order they made it to the top first.

13. Thomas Muster. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2619.

14. Marcelo Ríos. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, never won a major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2601.

15. Carlos Moyà. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 2 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2633.

16. Yevgeny Kafelnikov. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 6 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2653.

17. Patrick Rafter. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 1 week during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2671.

18. Marat Safin. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 9 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2653.

19. Gustavo Kuerten. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 43 weeks during his career, won 3 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2621.

20. Lleyton Hewitt. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 80 weeks during his career, won 2 majors in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2678.

21. Juan Carlos Ferrero. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 8 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2652.

22. Andy Roddick. Held the Number 1 position for a total of 13 weeks during his career, won 1 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2676.

23. Roger Federer. Has held the Number 1 position for a total of 196 weeks during his career, has won 12 major in the open era and peaked at an Elo rating of 2796.


The lowest ELO peak rating of the first 12 players achieving the number 1 status was 2670 by Ilie Năstase. Out of the next 11 players, 7 were lower than the previous lowest. Only Patrick Rafter, Lleyton Hewitt, Andy Roddick and Roger Federer meeting the minimum standard necessary of the first list.

While the average career reign at Number 1 for the first 12 players was 117.8 weeks this figure falls to 33.6 weeks for the second list and would be as low as 17.4 if it were not for Federer. The mean number of Majors won falls from 7.2 in the first list to 2.5 in the second list and again would be as low as 1.5 barring Federer.

Now I have talked this point over with others and the one argument I have heard most frequently is that these players were playing in the eras of Sampras, Agassi and Federer so it’s normal that they shouldn’t have achieved as much as the first list. I’m not convinced by this, the first list has some pretty good players to. But this essentially misses the point, the question is why did they ever get to be Number 1 in the first place?

To me this is indicative of one thing, i.e. to achieve the number 1 status is now easier than it was previously, possibly because the ratings are issued more frequently and possibly because any changes in the points system has impacted on the volatility of the series.

I was asked once before, why my ELO ratings move so slowly. I think the question should be why do ATP ratings move so quickly and apparently only in the more recent years.

I’m all for the volume based ATP ratings and the pressure it puts on a player to play more frequently, but it does appear as if something may be going a little astray with the system and it perhaps needs to be looked at.

What do people think.

Very interesting and revealing. Fed is on top at 2796. Next is Lendl.